Widescreen Encoding

Robert-Costo wrote on 7/3/2018, 2:48 PM

I have Movie Studio 8.0 and yes I know it is Old but it works very very well.

I made a lot of JPG Images 854x480 Pixels in Size.

Now before I Import them I go to my Project Settings and do thi.

I set Project Size to 720x480 NTSC DV Widescreen.

Then I set Pixel Ratio to 1.2121 and Click Apply and OK.

Then I Import all my JPG Images and Ad my Vioce over and go to Render As.

For Format I pick .AVI and for Template I pick NTSC DV.

Everything goes good and after it is doen I Drag the Video into the Program MediaInformation.

And it says the Frame Size is 720x480 this is good but it say the Ratio is 3:2 am I right it did make my Widescreen it just is not that Wide but it still is Widescreen?

And I did not think NTSC DV Widescreen was supported by .AVI????

Comments

Musicvid wrote on 7/3/2018, 2:51 PM

You need to select the DV WIDESCREEN template when rendering.

The DV Storage Ratio is 3:2.

DV and DV Widescreen Display Aspects are not because they are factored by the Pixel Aspect Ratio. Wikipedia is your friend.

If there are thin black bars, select "Adjust Source Media..."

Robert-Costo wrote on 7/3/2018, 9:48 PM

Ok first things first.

I made my JPGs 854x480 because I thought this is Widescreen Image for Photos amd I right?

And when I Render As I see NTSC VD Widescreen in the Templates Box but not DV Widescreen like you say.

I think I miss understand what you are telling me to do?

EricLNZ wrote on 7/4/2018, 7:05 AM

NTSC DV Widescreen is 720x480 with a PAR of 1.2121. This gives a square pixel size of 873x480 for your still images. Slightly different to your 854x480. Then render using NTSC DV Widescreen and all should be okay. No need to fiddle with any other settings.

Musicvid wrote on 7/4/2018, 7:39 AM

Jeez. I meant NTSC DV WIDESCREEN.

I understand aspect ratio and your question perfectly because I taught it in public schools.

Required Reading Here, and good luck.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_aspect_ratio

 

 

Robert-Costo wrote on 7/4/2018, 11:27 AM

Thank you for all the time and help.

And I will go ahead and Render my Videos but I just want to talk about some other things.

I know both 4:3 and 16:9 Videos are 720x480 for the USA.

And when Widescreen is made by a Computer they arrange the Pixels in a Rectabgular Shape.

So why did you say NTSC DV uses a PAR of 1.2121 to give a Square Shape??

Jam_One wrote on 7/4/2018, 12:49 PM
And I did not think NTSC DV Widescreen was supported by .AVI????

1) All DV is "in AVI". (Except for "HDV", which is neither AVI, nor... uh... DV.)

2) You may have heared "AVI does not support widescreen", and it is right. In some sense. AVI -- as the container -- has got no ability to store/declare aspect ratios (as well as interlacing). But DV -- as the codec (which is comressor-decompressor) -- has got it.
If you happen to output an uncomressed AVI you will have no aspect/interlace information in your file; but if you wrap some compressed format inside then the codec may carry the information in it.

3) 854x480 is "16:9 photo", that's right.

4) If you see "Square pixels" words in codec's settings -- it basically means the proportions of the image were/are never chancged/going to be changed during encoding/decoding. If you see words about "non-square pixels" -- this basically means the proportions were/are going to be changed during encoding/decoding.
This may require, as they say, "keeping your eyes open" sometimes.
If you squeese photos into DV or any other "non-square" format you should ultimately select "non-square" encoding presets.

5) HD / FHD / UHD formats nowadays are "square" (except for HDV) and can be treated like normal photos when it comes to geometry (they do still differ from photos in regard of color).

 

Musicvid wrote on 7/4/2018, 1:30 PM

So why did you say NTSC DV uses a PAR of 1.2121 to give a Square Shape??

Pixels are pixels, the smallest discrete unit in digital imaging. They are all square. When we say pixels are "stretched", that is a really handy visual metaphor, not a physical truth.

Anamorphic PAR is a FACTOR (multiplier) by which we adjust the VIEWING width, nothing less, nothing more. Your video is eternally, unequivocally stored at 720x480 square pixels, and ANY Display Aspect (rectangular shape) can be displayed by assigning an Anamorph factor (PAR), including the correct one.

Think of a magnifier that only magnifies in one direction (L-R). Does looking at it that way change the shape of your printed text, or only the way it is being viewed?

So for NTSC Widescreen 1.00 PAR (3:2) is incorrect (skinny), as is .9091 (4:3, skinnier), as is 1.333 (fat), as is 2.41 (really fat!).

When I guided you to Wikipedia for "required reading," it really wasn't a trivial suggestion. We helps those who helps themselves, on things related to Vegas. If you are wanting more individual guidance on general video topics, the Off Topic section is the place to post.

Robert-Costo wrote on 7/4/2018, 4:19 PM

So if I understand you right.

When I bring my Video into MediaInfromation and it says the Ratio is 3:2 and Frame size 720x480 this is a None Widescreen Ratio.

And this is because I made all my JPGs 854x480 and I should have made them 873x480 then Rendar As .AVI NTSC DV Widescreen?

EricLNZ wrote on 7/4/2018, 6:08 PM

854x480 gives you correctly 16:9 but Standard Definition DV widescreen is not exactly 16:9. It is slightly wider giving approx 16.4:9. Or to put it another way it has an aspect ratio of 1.82 whereas true 16:9 is 1.7777. This is the reason for the slight pixel size difference and why 873x480 is the required size for a perfect fit.

To answer your last sentence - After rendering as AVI NTSC DV widescreen your media info will be the same. Your use of 854x480 images didn't affect the media info. And yes use 873x480 and render to AVI NTSC DV Widescreen.

PS: I've just realised this is a Movie Studio query so I'll move it to that forum.

 

Musicvid wrote on 7/5/2018, 9:38 AM

Now, my slightly off-center take on this whole conundrum of Anamorphic Widescreen, which may come up again as 4k camera and gadget makers look for smaller storage solutions for what a few of us might call a bloated format for vanilla 8 bit delivery.

SD, HD, 4K, all 16:9, which is close to 2:1. Except it's not.

16:9 is also close to 9:5 (ex. 864x480). Except it's not.

A few of us can still figure simple ratios in our heads. We grew up in the days when it was a great knack to have on set and in the wild (4:3, 4:5, 4:6, and the dreaded 5:7, remember kids?).

So what's with the 16:9, already? Give an old guy a break. Let's see, I could double the short dimension and subtract 2/9 of the product, or I could halve the long dimension and add 1/16 of the...., or something along those lines.

I can do 2:1 while sipping a Gatorade. 9:5 too on a clear morning. But an "almost" mental math ratio? Maddening. Machiavellian. Misery.

Whatever obtuse logic led us to tolerate such unsimple aspect ratios since still photography was king, I wouldn't have a clue.